Waging war is easy. Instigate provocative incidents. Blame them on targeted countries. False flags work as planned. So do Big Lies repeated enough times to get most people to believe them.

Stoking fear is a common thread. So is claiming good v. evil. Mix well with misinformation and duplicity. Sun Tzu was right saying wars depend on deception. It's been that way since antiquity. Modern technology makes it easier.

Churchill said lies get halfway around the world before truths get their pants on. Global communication today is instant. Sending hawkish information everywhere is as simple as ready, aim, fire.

Washington and NATO partners are involved in multiple direct and proxy wars. More are planned. Word hasn't gotten out but it's coming.

Obama and Romney want war. So does NATO Secretary-General Fogh Rasmussen. He's a consummate liar. Numerous times he said NATO won't intervene in Syria. It's been planned all along.

It's ongoing. America, Britain, France and Turkey are lead belligerents. They've been involved since winter last year. Much goes on covertly.

If NATO didn't want war, its key countries would be supporting peace. Death squad armies wouldn't have been recruited. Training, funding, arming, and directing them wouldn't have been ongoing since conflict erupted in March 2011.

Nor would terrorists be given safe haven in Turkey on Syria's border. Provocations throw fuel on the fire. Last June, two Turkish warplanes lawlessly entered Syrian airspace low and fast. Doing so showed hostile intent.

One escaped unharmed. Syrian anti-aircraft fire downed the other in its own waters. Assad was blamed for Turkey's provocation. War could have erupted but didn't at the time.

The latest cross-border incident makes it more likely. Inflammatory rhetoric increases the possibility. Turkey's been shelling Syrian territory for six days.

Warmongering officials advance the ball for war. Turkish ones play with fire. As one of 28 NATO countries, it's obligated in ways it wouldn't be if independent. It also borders Syrian territory.

Prime Minister Erdogan has been hawkish for months. President Abdullah Gul marches with him in lockstep.

"The worst-case scenario is happening in Syria at the moment. Syrian people are suffering and the developments there affect Turkey. We have citizens who have lost their lives," he said.

"In such a moment, we are always in consultations with our government and chief of General Staff. Whatever necessary is being done, as you know. And it will continue to be done."

"Sooner or later, a transition will occur. But our wish is (for it to happen) before more blood is shed and before Syria is ruined. I am of the opinion that the international community should actively be involved."

Did he ask NATO to declare war? What else can international intervention mean? It's been involved all along short of launching Libya 2.0. Turkey's role is lead belligerent. Whatever its preference, it's acquiescent.

Except perhaps for EU admission, it's hard imagining what it hopes to gain. War on its southern neighbor assures spillover in its own territory. Heavy casualties and destruction will follow.

Most Turks and key opposition parties oppose war. Erdogan and Gul risk their futures for going against the tide. They're in lockstep with Washington's agenda. The will of their own people is spurned.

Politically it's a bad strategy. Maybe they have other aims in mind. Maybe they're biting off more than they can chew. Maybe they'll get burned or worse in the process.

They've already got enough blood on their hands. So does NATO's Rasmussen. He's a war criminal multiple times over. How many more corpses will he tolerate on his conscience?

Ahead of an earlier October Brussels meeting, he said:

"I would add to that that obviously Turkey can rely on NATO solidarity, we have all necessary plans in place to protect and defend Turkey if necessary."

He did little to cool tensions, adding:

"We hope that all parties involved will show restraint, and avoid an escalation of the crisis. I do believe that the right way forward in Syria is political solution."

If he believed it, he'd work with other NATO members and to call off their dogs. Since conflict erupted last year, belligerence was prioritized. Alleged humanitarian concerns and fake peace plans were subterfuge for what's planned.

On October 9, Rasmussen's rhetoric grew sharper. "We have all necessary plans in place to protect and defend Turkey if necessary," he said.

Damascus needs defending, not Ankara. Rasmussen commended Turkey for its restraint. Shelling Syrian territory for six days hardly shows it. Clearly it makes war more likely.

"Obviously Turkey has a right to defend herself within international law," claimed Rasmussen. "I would add….that Turkey can rely on NATO solidarity."

Rasmussen and Erdogen both sound Orwellian. The NATO chief commends Turkish shelling as restraint. Erdogan practically says the best way to achieve peace is wage war.

Perhaps he also believes freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength. Maybe Turks will get fed up enough to remove him and likeminded warmongers before their country get embroiled over its head.

On condition of anonymity, NATO officials said plans in place are longstanding. In response to Washington's regime change agenda, perhaps they were readied in the 1990s.

Turkey is a willing client state. It risks its own well-being. Partnering with America's imperium has consequences. The price of imperial arrogance may be too much to pay.

Dozens were reported killed. Many others were wounded. It's the latest in a series of major attacks. The Al Qaeda-linked Al-Nusra Front took credit. It claimed it was avenging Muslims "oppressed or killed" by Assad.

If Syria responds in kind, all bets are off. Turkey suggests it's spoiling for war. It moved tanks and other heavy weapons to its southern border. It has 25 F-16s and other aircraft positioned in Diyarbakir. It's in the country's Kurdish region.

They attacked four alleged PKK sites in Iraq. It followed a near parliamentary declaration of war on Syria. It barely stopped short. After an earlier in October NATO meeting, the following statement was issued:

"In view of the Syrian regime’s recent aggressive acts at NATO’s southeastern border, which are a flagrant breach of international law and a clear and present danger to the security of one of its Allies, the North Atlantic Council met today, within the framework of Article 4 of the Washington Treaty…."

"In the spirit of indivisibility of security and solidarity deriving from the Washington Treaty, the Alliance continues to stand by Turkey and demands the immediate cessation of such aggressive acts against an Ally."

At the behest of any member, Articles 4 or 5 can be invoked.

Article 4 calls for members to "consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence, or security of any" is threatened.

Article 5 considers an armed attack (real or otherwise) against one or more members, an attack against all, and calls for collective self-defense.

Will NATO invoke it next? Will full-scale war follow? Heightened tensions increase the likelihood. If it's planned, it's virtually certain. Perhaps another pretext will launch it. As explained above, it's as simple as ready, aim, fire. Heaven help regional countries if it's ordered.

A Final Comment

Mossad-connected DEBKAfile's (DF) October 9 headline added another possible wrinkle of its own. "US, Israel plan October Surprise. Others: Israel can do it alone," it said.

DF said an Israeli/Iranian war already is ongoing. It cited the UAV Israel downed over its territory days earlier. DF blamed Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.

This writer called it a likely false flag. No regional country has anything to gain. For Israel, it's a convenient casus belli. If one scheme doesn't work, new ones are easy to invent. Israel does it often. So does Washington.

DF points fingers at Iran for practically everything it claims harms Israel. Tehran, of course, is victim, not perpetrator. So are Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Palestinian resistance groups.

The idea that Israel can go it alone is nonsense. Its capability isn't up to the challenge. It won't dare attack Iran without Washington's approval and support. DF knows it but claims otherwise.

Perhaps it's playing stalking horse for something else big planned. Full-scale war on Syria seems most likely. If it comes, it won't be pre-announced. Nor will war on Iran or on any other countries. Targets aren't given advance notice to prepare.

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.